Comments

>Oh noes, off-topic posts get down-voted!!! I'm sure NOTHING similar to that if a guy posts, in a discussion of rape victims, his story of being falsely accused of rape. Yeah, we have a clear double standard here.

>If you're claiming that "GetLikeMe" is the victim of MRA hounding, then you need to be a better journalist and actually look at her usage patterns or more specifically, her lack thereof. She registered one day ago and her comments, taken together, test the limits of believability. It's standard practice to downvote anything from trolls and this looks like a troll, smells like a troll…

>Seriously, did you read her posts? She's obviously not a troll "Haha, you're right, THIS thread is great. People are being respectful and intelligent. I think what I need to do is just slowly walk backwards out of that other thread."

>Disgusting behaviour on the part of the MPAs. I mean, seriously? Assuming someone is a liar b/c they said they were raped? Asking intrusive and improper questions. I sincerely hope she is a troll since it would be horrific for an actual survivor to be subjected to such vitriol…I guess all that "innocent til proven guilty" only goes for the men accused of rape and molestation. Surprise surprise. Eye rolls. abyss2hope had a blog post about this double standard: http://abyss2hope.blogspot.com/2010/04/presumptively-innocent-vs-actually.htmlAlso, MPAs constantly troll fem blogs so that any discussion about rape turns into a "what about teh menz?" discussion. Annoying, isn't it? Typical MPA BS: think their somehow entitled to their opinions and should be able to share (those nasty feminists and their "censorship"!), but can't take criticism… Just add it to the growing pile of double standards and hypocrisies that characterize the male privilege apologists…

>Actually Tec, they're in keeping with the "innocent until proven guilty" thing. You don't automatically assume someone who is accusing someone else of a crime (like, say, rape) is telling the truth until the crime has reached a conviction in the court of law. That is the point of "innocent until proven guilty."

>Dr: the "innocent until proven guilty" thing is for juries. The rest of us are free to think whatever we want. And juries aren't infallible. Do you assume OJ was innocent because he wasn't convicted of murder? Conversely, do you think the Innocence Project should stop trying to get innocent people off death row because those people were convicted?

>DAVID: This is the internet, and it's pretty hard to know who is and who isn't telling the truth Correct!It is said that about 80 percent of all internet-profils, stories, chat etc. are either out of fantasy or contain otherwise untrue information.This applies to all, MRA-forums, feminist forums, dating websites, used car for sale, etc. etc. any communication between unknown people on the internet. You cannot trust unknown people on the internet.

>TEC said: "I mean, seriously? Assuming someone is a liar b/c they said they were raped?"David said: "Dr: the "innocent until proven guilty" thing is for juries. The rest of us are free to think whatever we want."HILARIOUSRandom Brother

>"Dr: the "innocent until proven guilty" thing is for juries. The rest of us are free to think whatever we want. And juries aren't infallible."And that's why we need feminism. Feminism squelched out of the entitled housewife's ennui to pick up where the juries left off. Where ever would we be without frivolous "hostile environment" lawsuits – things which cannot be quantified but still demand astronomical compensation – and organized death threat campaigns against impartial psychologists?

>TEC: Assuming someone is a liar b/c they said they were raped? Asking intrusive and improper questions. What else can be done if a woman or man is claiming 'rape'?Seriously, do you believe 'everything' what people are telling you? DAVID: ….. what happens when a guy posts something on that subreddit about being falsely accused of rape or child abduction. No scrutiny, no downvotes. It's simply assumed to be true. Read this thread again…If you ask questions, TEC will tell you this is wrong.If you do not ask questions, David will tell you this is wrong.So, what to do?

>@Tessy – So you don't acknowledge your own privilege, but go on to claim that every man inhaling dust in the coal mines is actually privileged, while his relaxing housewife is the "oppressed" one? That the four times as many "privileged" men who commit suicide do so out of excessive preferential treatment?See, this is why we need feminism – to go outside of pesky the pesky boundaries "justice" and "fairness" and make sure men live in a police state with the chronic fear of a false accusation of harassment or rape – or just getting their ass kicked by some nasal little feminist harpy, without the right for any recourse.

>Eoghan, how would you know false claims of false accusations aren't a problem? False accusation is a crime. If you are innocent until proven guilty of rape you are innocent until proven guilty of false accusation.

>@Sandy – yes that's what abyss2hope points out too. The same people who want "innocent til proven guilty" for the "alleged" rapist will not extend an "innocent til proven guilty" for the "alleged false" rape accuser. We're just supposed to assume the guilt of the accuser ie. they're lying. As David says, it's inconsistent…

>@Eoghan- Stop lying. Actually if you'd bothered to take a look at abyss2hope's site, as I quoted, you'll see that there are several examples of proven "false" rape allegations ie the accuser was convicted only to later be determined as being actual rapes… What is it about PDDs and not wanting to read???Also, what epidemic? what media? Cite your sources or as usual you're just presenting a bogus set of claims with no back up…

>Eoghan, you do realize that because of your long history of spamming and misrepresenting other people's posts you are banned here? Blogger doesn't make it possible to ban individuals, but I will delete any comments you make as soon as I see them.I warned you numerous times before I banned you. You had your chance to change your ways, and you failed to take it. Find some other blog to pester, or start your own.

>"@Sandy – yes that's what abyss2hope points out too. The same people who want "innocent til proven guilty" for the "alleged" rapist will not extend an "innocent til proven guilty" for the "alleged false" rape accuser. We're just supposed to assume the guilt of the accuser ie. they're lying. As David says, it's inconsistent…"Now you're just twisting shit around. You cannot, at the same time, assume that the accused rapist is innocent AND that the person leveraging accusation is telling the truth. It is a mutually exclusive situation. Nobody is being inconsistent; you're just either woefully or intentionally ignorant.Different people have different opinions on justice and as was needlessly pointed out by David, the judicial system is infallible. Since it is infallible you can err either on the side of letting more "guilty" people walk free, or imprisoning more innocent people. Being that we are a free society which values liberty, it would seem that supporting a system which was biased towards imprisoning more people – even innocent people – would be less just than a system which instead allows for more guilty people to walk free.Try reading this for some elaboration:

>@Dr – you're responding to me, moron. Try reading before posting. I am now fully convinced that MPAs are illiterate given this and similar has happened several times.It's not ignorant nor mutually exclusive. It's called "innocent until proven guilty" i.e. if someone is accused of a crime, any crime, they are presumed innocent and it is up to the court to prove otherwise. The point, which you clearly miss given your poor grasp apparently of communication skills, is that it is incredibly BIASED to assume innocence in one case just because it's a man (largely) and then assume guilt in other cases because it's a woman (largely). *IF* you'd attempted to read the blog post I cited, you'd be further capable of conversing on this and have some sort of basic understanding of the point I was making, but clearly did not bother…

>"What's up with you adding 'ssy' to people's names? Is that your way of talking down to them?"Yes, it's most definitely a ridiculously feeble attempt at condescension, right up there with "sweetie", "hon" or "hun"….. while out the other side of their mouths, they condemn feminists in particular and women in general for their use of "shaming language". LOL!! **roll eyes**

>If the post was not an accusation this whole comment thread is ridiculous. That woman said "I was raped." she does not have to prove she is not lying. UNLESS she ACCUSES SOMEONE. I didn't read the post, but I sincerely doubt she went there to name names. "Innocent until proven guilty?" WHO? Some unnamed dude. Nobody can say "I was mugged." or "This happened to me." I am disappointed with everyone here. How can you not pick up on this. (I guess the next step is to actually find out she did name a name…that would surprise me.)And I am not "Mark" this is my boyfriend's account, I'm Theresa.

> Mark: That woman said "I was raped." she does not have to prove she is not lying. UNLESS she ACCUSES SOMEONE.This is not correct. To be a liar and to file deliberately a false police report is an offense for itself, regardless if this woman is accusing a certain person or not.To create hoax crimes might turn out to be a costly adventure.Police in some countries has already the right to charge such malicious women high fees for wasted working hours in case the crime never took place.

>"This is not correct. To be a liar and to file deliberately a false police report is an offense for itself"You know, it would be nice if once in a while you actually read the post and the thing I linked to before offering your opinions on them. The woman in question did not report the crime. She explains why in detail in a number of her posts on reddit.

We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism. This blog is NOT a safe space; given the subject matter -- misogyny and hate -- there's really no way it could be.